Water as a fuel?

Trevelyan

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2000
4,077
0
71
He's still using electricity to split the H2O and then combust it... just remove the extra step and power a motor with the electricity.
 

OVerLoRDI

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2006
5,490
4
81
a few years old and i havent heard much about it since. It all really matters how much energy is required to make the HHO gas.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
old scam
more electricity used to make hydrogen than you get out at the end:p so rather pointless..you might as well use the electricity straight off to power the wheels
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Someone needs to learn the definition of "fuel source". You might as well say that a rechargeable battery is a fuel source, and ignore the part where you plug it in to recharge it.
 

KarmaPolice

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2004
3,066
0
0
I agree, the electricity is the true fuel source...

I read an article a while ago about a new solar cell that is cheap to make and can be rolled on, and it also does a better job of getting energy when its cloudy(although its still not a lot)

There are so many places in the US that are just bare, and will probably never used for anything and are constantly sunny. Why can we just blanket these areas with solar power and use that as a major power source. I realize that transportation is a problem..thats why the next great invention will be cheap extremely long lasting batteries that are environmentally friendly.
 

Mark R

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,513
16
81
Water isn't fuel. Water is ash. Just like the fumes that come from the tail pipe of your car are ash.

You can't get energy from ash - ash is what's left after the fuel has given up its energy.

Of course, you can convert water into hydrogen fuel by pumping in vast quantities of electrical energy - but you lose a significant amount of energy in the process, and you lose a heck of a lot more getting the hydrogen to do anything useful for you.

Een the cutting torch he shows in that vid is pretty useless except for demonstrations. It's got a ridiculously high flame temperature so it's very difficult to control the cut, the flame is very light and contains very little energy so it can't cut lumps (only thin sheets), the flame is virtually invisible so is potentially dangerous, the gas is a lot more explosive than alternatives like acetylene, and the hydrogen in the flame damages the metal if you use it for welding.

This technology has been around for decades and decades - it has found use in a few niches (e.g. very fine torches for jewellers, where cylinders of gas would be impractical - even then the torch has to spray additives into the flame to make the flame controllable). If it was genuinely useful, it would have taken off long ago.